STATE OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC. PETITIONER VERSUS KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RESPONDENT No. 12592D JUDGMENT This matter came bef ore the Board of Tax Appeals (the "Board") f or a hearing on an Exce ption of Jurisdiction filed by the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana (the "Department") in response to the Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (the "Petitioner", "UPS-America"). A hearing on the Department's Exception was held before the Board on June 2, 2021. Presiding at the hearing were: Judge Tony Graphia (Ret.), Chairman, and board members Cade R. Cole and Jay Lobrano. Participating in the hearing were William J. Kalorik, II and J. Edward Goff, attorneys for UPS-America, and Aaron Long, attorney f or the Department. After the hearing the matter was taken under advisement. The Board now issues this judgment in accordance with the written reasons attached herewith. [STAPCE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 1
11
Embed
STATE OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UNITED PARCEL ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
STATE OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC. PETITIONER
VERSUS
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
RESPONDENT
No. 12592D
JUDGMENT
This matter came before the Board of Tax Appeals (the "Board") for
a hearing on an Exception of Jurisdiction filed by the Department of
Revenue, State of Louisiana (the "Department") in response to the
Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by United Parcel Service of
America, Inc. (the "Petitioner", "UPS-America"). A hearing on the
Department's Exception was held before the Board on June 2, 2021.
Presiding at the hearing were: Judge Tony Graphia (Ret.), Chairman,
and board members Cade R. Cole and Jay Lobrano. Participating in the
hearing were William J. Kalorik, II and J. Edward Goff, attorneys for
UPS-America, and Aaron Long, attorney for the Department. After the
hearing the matter was taken under advisement. The Board now issues
this judgment in accordance with the written reasons attached herewith.
[STAPCE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
1
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
Taxpayer's Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction BE AND IS
HEREBY DENIED, an Exception of Prematurity BE AND IS HEREBY
GRANTED. The Petition for Declaratory Judgment is dismissed, without
prejudice.
JUDGMENT RENDERED AND SIGNED at Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, this 14th day of July, 2021.
FOR THE BOARD·
JUDGE TO CHAIRMAN
2
STATE OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC. PETITIONER
VERSUS
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
RESPONDENT
No. 12592D
WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter came before the Board of Tax Appeals (the "Board") for
a hearing on an Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana (the "Department") in
response to the Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed by United Parcel
Service of America, Inc. (the "Petitioner", "UPS-America"). A hearing on
the Department's Exception was held before the Board on June 2, 2021.
Presiding at the hearing were Judge Tony Graphia (Ret.), Chairman, and
Board Members Cade R. Cole and Francis J. "Jay" Lobrano. Participating
in the hearing were J. Edward Goff and William Kalorik, II, attorneys for
Petitioner, and Aaron Long, attorney for the Department. After the
hearing the matter was taken under advisement. The Board now issues
the attached judgment for the following written reasons.
I. Facts and Procedural History
The Petitioner was under audit by the Department for the 2012,
2013 and 2014 tax years (the "Tax Periods") for potential Louisiana
Corporate Income ("CIT") and Corporate Franchise Tax ("CFT") liability.
UPS-America filed a petition with the Board on December 30, 2020,
i
seeking a Declaratory Judgment that it does not have sufficient
minimum contacts to support taxation in Louisiana.
UPS-America's petition states the following: Petitioner is a
Delaware holding corporation headquartered in Georgia. Petitioner owns
all UPS related intellectual property1 and is the intermediate parent of
the UPS Corporate Group. Petitioner licenses its intellectual property to
UPS Market Driver who in turn sublicensed it to various subsidiaries
operating in Louisiana. UPS-America asserts that it did not have any
employees, payroll, or tangible property in Louisiana during the Tax
Periods, and that it did not file Louisiana CIT or CFT returns.
As of the filing of its petition the Department had not issued an
assessment for the Tax Periods. The Department filed an Exception of
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing the Board lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to grant the declaratory judgment as prayed for. The
Department subsequently issued an assessment to the Petitioner and the
Petitioner has filed two additional actions with the Board:
(1) BTA Docket No. 12781D: UPS-America filed a Petition for
Redetermination of the Department's Assessment, dated March 9, 2021,
for the CIT periods of December 31, 2013 - December 31, 2014, and for
the CFT periods of December 31, 2013 - December 31, 2015. These are
substantially the same Tax Periods as the present matter.
(2) BTA Docket No. 12780D: UPS-America filed another Petition
for Declaratory Judgment alleging it did not have minimum contacts to
1 UPS intellectual property includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, algorithms, tradenames, slogans, trade dress, domain names, and other intellectual property.
2
support taxation in Louisiana for the 2015 - 2017 CIT period and the
2016 - 2018 CFT period. The Petitioner is still under audit for these tax
periods and the Department has not issued an assessment.
II. Issues Presented
The Department filed an Exception o] Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction in its answer to UPS-America's Petition. The Department
argues that the Board does not have jurisdiction under La. R.S.
4 7: 1407(7) to hear the Petitioner's action for Declaratory Judgment as it
relates to the Petitioner's minimum contacts with Louisiana since the
Petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality of a specific law or
ordinance or the validity of a regulation.
La. Const. art. V, Sec. 35 provides that "[t]he remedies required by
Article VII, Section 3(A) of this Constitution shall extend to any
unconstitutional tax paid by a taxpayer."
Louisiana Revised Statute 4 7:1431 provides a Taxpayer's right to
appeal for redetermination of an assessment or for determination of an
overpayment. The statute provides, in relevant part:
(D)(l) In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title VI of Book II of the Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable law, an aggrieved party may petition the board concerning a matter authorized pursuant to R.S. 4 7: 1407(7) ...
The Jurisdiction of the Board is defined by Louisiana Revised
Statute 47:1407, which provides in relevant part:
The jurisdiction of the [B]oard shall extend to the following:
(7) A petition for declaratory judgment or other action related to the constitutionality of a law or ordinance or validity of a regulation concerning any matter relating to any state ... tax.
3
In its petition for Declaratory Judgment, UPS-America alleges that
it did not have the minimum contacts necessary to support jurisdiction
for taxation in Louisiana during the Tax Periods. Petitioner argues that
the Due Process Clause requires minimum contacts between a state and
the person, property, or transaction it seeks to tax, and the Department's
actions violate such requirement. In the Petitioner's Memorandum in
Opposition to the Department's Exception to the Jurisdiction of the
Board, the Petitioner characterizes its argument as a constitutional
challenge, arguing that the term "constitutionality" as used in La. R.S. §
4 7: 1407(7) confers jurisdiction on the board to address both facial
challenges and as applied challenges to the constitutionality of a law.
The Board notes that both parties failed to address the catchall
provision of La. R.S. 47:143l(E) which allows any aggrieved party to file
a petition with the board for "all matters related to state or local taxes or
fees." La. R.S. 4 7: 1407(3).
III. Discussion
There are two types of constitutional challenges: (1) facial
challenges, and (2) as-applied challenges. See Dixon v. Flournoy, 24 7 La.
1067, 176 So.2d 138, fn. 1 (La. 1965) (A tax statute was ruled
unconstitutional, as applied). In this matter the Petitioner characterizes
its petition as an "as-applied" challenge. The Petitioner's reply
memorandum correctly observes that the term "constitutionality" is not
qualified by an indicator, thus the plain text presents no reason to
distinguish between the Board's jurisdiction to hear a facial challenge or
an as-applied challenge.
4
Further, the legislative history for Acts 278 (HB 516, 2020), 365
(HB583, 2019), and 446 (HB 428, 2019) supports this conclusion. The
legislative history reflects the intent to provide the Board with the same
power to rule on constitutional questions as a district court, in addition
to the Board's existing jurisdiction. The Digest for Act 365 states:
Existing law authorizes state courts to provide a legal remedy in cases where taxes are claimed to be an unlawful burden upon interstate commerce or when the collection of taxes violates any Act of Congress, the U.S. Constitution, or the Constitution of La.
New law retains existing law and extends this jurisdiction to the Board of Tax Appeals (the board) to handle such cases. New law also authorizes state courts and the board to provide a legal remedy for cases where taxes are claimed to be unconstitutional.
Existing law authorizes a court of competent jurisdiction to determine in an action for declaratory judgment the validity or applicability of a rule. New law retains existing law and additionally authorizes the board to make such determination.
Before the 2019 amendments, the Board "certainly lack[ed]
jurisdiction to declare a statute or ordinance unconstitutional, but that
[did] not prevent consideration of jurisprudence related to federal or state
constitutional law as applied to a particular set of facts in a particular
case." Thomas J. Adamek v. Secretary, Dep't of Revenue, State of La., 2018
WL 24 73215 (La. Bd. Tax App. 3/6/2018). The Board was permitted to
"apply constitutional provisions and jurisprudence in the handling of its
cases." Hanover Compressor Co v. Dep't of Revenue, State of La., 2002-
0925, p. 12, fn. 7 (La. App. 3 Cir 2/5/03) 838 So.2d 876, 883; See Schwan's
Consumer Brands, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 2019 WL 4571970 (La.
Bd. Tax App. 8/14/2019). 2019 Constitutional Amendment No. 3 was
5
adopted to expand the Board's jurisdiction to a concurrent basis with a
district court on tax matters, which would include the jurisdiction to hear
both facial and as-applied challenges. La. Const. art. V, Sec. 35.
At the hearing, the Department argued the term
"constitutionality," as used in La. R.S. 4 7: 1407(7), strictly means the
Board has the power to rule on facial constitutional challenges and not
as applied challenges. This interpretation reaches an absurd result. As
.noted above, the Board retained its then existing jurisdiction under prior
law in addition to the new grant of authority to hear constitutional
challenges. It is illogical to conclude that under the revised law the Board
could apply constitutional principles in the handling of its cases and rule
a law factually unconstitutional, but not also have the authority to rule
a law's application to a taxpayer to violate the constitution.
However, additional considerations complicate this analysis. A
taxpayer does not have the unrestrained right to petition the Board. La.